The problem with just about every virtual desktop implementation is just that - they're virtual. This means that beyond the ability to move windows to specific desktops, you're still looking at exactly the same desktop, no matter what virtual desktop number you switched to. A mockup for GNOME Shell is trying to take the virtual out of virtual desktop.

The difference you describe is minimal, certainly not enough to merit two different terms and certainly not accepted by the community at large. Your disgust at "multiple desktops" is intriguing, given the minuscule difference between that and your definition of "virtual desktops". But OSNews has been known to be populated by zealots with interesting definitions and requirements, not derived from reality or logic.

The described difference is just for identification and doesn't cover all actual differences. It's a vastly different implementation to get a similar effect. I don't have a 'disgust' for multiple desktops, they just don't work the way I work and therefore are not for me. To insult me as somehow unreasonable for wanting particular behavior out of my computer is not very reasonable or logical of you!

Any feature for which users fail to express an appreciation is in danger of being casually dropped or ignored in the future. I prefer working in a big workspace that's subdivided rather than a lot of tiny ones that don't connect and I don't want the distinction forgotten as we march forward.

But there really is no salient difference between your definitions, other than one specific feature (a way of moving windows between desktops, and not the only one in either system).

I'm not questioning your desire for that behavior, I'm questioning your terminology and categorization of technology. There is no difference between multiple and virtual desktops for all intents and purposes. What you really wanted to rant about was those implementations which lack a user-friendly way to move windows between the desktop(lets).